tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10425945.post111152136534302860..comments2024-03-14T18:15:27.812-03:00Comments on ObjectARX & Dummies: AutoCAD 2006 - Interview with Albert Szilvasy (Autodesk)Fernando Malardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09852061806995998594noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10425945.post-1111762963320558662005-03-25T12:02:00.000-03:002005-03-25T12:02:00.000-03:00"custom objects may be overused"Perhaps .NET devel..."custom objects may be overused"<BR/><BR/>Perhaps .NET developers aren't looking for full control but I suspect they are. I'm guessing that if you give them a taste of the pie, they're going to want all they can eat :)<BR/><BR/>Since I work exclusively in C++ it doesn't really matter to me. In fact, I don't mind seeing .NET developers hobbled a bit :)<BR/><BR/>IMO, the real problem with the custom entity API in AutoCAD is one of too little control not too much. Take a look around the autodesk.autocad.objectarx newsgroup at the custom entity questions. Most of the questions are related to making entities behave as the developer needs them to, not bemoaning the difficulty of 'subclassing' a line. Does anyone really think the .NET developers have different goals?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10425945.post-1111633421051734612005-03-24T00:03:00.000-03:002005-03-24T00:03:00.000-03:00Dear Daniel,I already have explained that this cou...Dear Daniel,<BR/><BR/>I already have explained that this course will also cover custom objects / entities features which are not currently available in .NET API, AutoLISP or VBA, even in AutoCAD 2006 as Albert said.<BR/><BR/>The most powerful feature of ObjectARX is exactly the custom objects and I don't want to mix .NET with C++ which is not a good idea for beginners. Custom objects are not too complicated and I plan exactly to show this.<BR/><BR/>If you feel comfortable to provide a .NET course for AutoCAD I would really encourage you. Maybe I could also do this soon but now I'm focused on teaching ObjectARX in C++ (even I'm using myself .NET in some of my projects).<BR/><BR/>I really respect your point of view but I would like to use this Blog to discuss only technical issues and not user's comments about the course's contents and objectives.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your cooperation.<BR/>Regards.Fernando Malardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09852061806995998594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10425945.post-1111587722877476902005-03-23T11:22:00.000-03:002005-03-23T11:22:00.000-03:00I think Albert has addresses all of your objection...I think Albert has addresses all of your objections at http://arxdummies.blogspot.com/2005/02/class-3a-minimum-application.html<BR/><BR/>* "The .NET API already covers 95% of what one can do with ObjectARX in C++."<BR/><BR/>* "...wrap custom objects so that they are accessible from any .NET language."<BR/><BR/>* custom objects may be overused and Autodesk may be providing other alternatives<BR/><BR/>He also says<BR/><BR/>* "We actively encourage customers to use the .NET API for new work..."<BR/><BR/>* "...some features will be exposed in the .NET API only and not in ObjectARX..." <BR/><BR/>Don't get me wrong...you're doing a good thing here. I just think you should be doing it C# (or VB.NET) with the .NET APIs rather than C++. Especially since your target audience is "for Dummies".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com